I prefer LiteSpeed over SQL native compression. I have been using this for couple of my projects. LiteSpeed provides various compressions levels to use. I went with default which is 1. It saves little over 80% in terms of disk space. LiteSpeed also has integrated Log Shipping in case if you need and also lot of other features. Good Luck.

JeremyE (1/7/2011)A big win for Litespeed is the ability to do object level restores. Restoring a single table or proc is much easier than restoring an entire TB sized database and extracting the single table.

As far as single table, I'll give you that.. Out hosts Red-Gate has a tool that lets you mount the backup like a database and access it directly, very cool..

As far a sproc restore, I'm taking the position that if you have to go to the backup to get source code, that code control is likely an issue in your organization. The database is a recipient of the code not a storage location.. Sorry..

Elliott Whitlow (1/7/2011)[quote]As far a sproc restore, I'm taking the position that if you have to go to the backup to get source code, that code control is likely an issue in your organization. The database is a recipient of the code not a storage location.. Sorry..

CEWII

No reason to be sorry. I was merely highlighting the feature set and differences between Litepseed backups and compressed native SQL backups.

If you don't need object level restore, variable compression, or want to pay $1500/server then compressed native SQL backups will work just as well.